Comments about ‘My view: Climate change is an urgent issue’

David Folland knows perfectly well that James Hansen's 1988 predictions
have proved to be laughably wrong.

Hansen's team presented
three model scenarios, the "best case" of which claimed that if CO2
stopped increasing after 2000, we would only experience modest warming by now.
The actual measured temperature increase has been even less than this benign
prediction.

There is no climate crisis. Real temperatures are
increasing at about the rate we would expect after the last ice age. We have
much more to fear from the next ice age than the modestly warming and greening
(from increased CO2) planet we are experiencing now.

End political paralysis? It is too profitable to keep things as they are (at
least for some).

The problem is we understand so little about
science.

We see models change and improved and think "the old one
was totally wrong and this one could be too" when the lesson is the old one
was less precise than the new.

We see a handful of scientists who
disagree and think "they are the mavericks who will be one day proven
right". Maybe. But overall science moves in a distributed fashion with
thousands of scientists making minor improvements each day. There are
relatively few instances of qualitative leaps by one great mind. Also,
predicting who is the great mind is awfully tough.

We see that the
science is still developing and think "better to act when it is proven
fact". But science is ALWAYS developing and tinkering with the model (that
is its nature). So there is never a point of now we are done. Also,
"proven" in this sense will mean the negative effects are so strong that
countermanding them will be very tough.

I was thinking about Jerusalem, the climate changed a large city that had farms
into a desert. Who is to say that it won't change again to be farming crops
again. Every one on earth can all have space to live in the state of Texas. Zoom
out and think of the size of Texas and earth. Is there any thing that a pin head
can make a difference. or is it our ego that is larger than life. Who'll
stop the rain.

Re: "A promising bill to reduce greenhouse gasses was halted in the
Senate."

The bill was promising in only one respect -- it
promised to flush more and more resources down that giant AGW toilet, making
EVERYTHING in the world more expensive and unaffordable to its people, to no
salubrious effect.

Would it have reduced global greenhouse gases? Not
at all. ALL honest experts agree.

At any rate,
there is a reason why "Global Warming" was changed to "Climate
Change". There was no global warming that could be considered a problem.

Obama's stated goal to tackle climate change is nothing more
than a redistribution of wealth. I imagine it wouldn't hurt him much
either, he and his cronies, who stand to makemoney in the buying and
selling of carbon credits!

Affordable clean energy is a myth still.
You need look no further than the California company who just recently found
their solar panels failing after 2 years when they expected them to last 25.

If this is the position of the Deseret News, it won't be long
before my family doesn't subscribe to their paper any more.

I hope people don't think we can whistle past the grave yard on this.
There is no doubt we are putting more and more carbon into the atmosphere.
Wherever the laws of Physics is taking us, thither we will go.

New York TimesBy JUSTIN GILLISPublished: June 10, 2013 The
rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last
15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred
even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the
practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going
on. They (the practitioners of climate science) admit that they do not, even
though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The
situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some
of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space
and from deep in the ocean.

In the mean time will an AGW adherent
please tell us what is the correct earth temperature we are going to hold at?

What a
revealing statement. You won't even accept the idea that people could
disagree and just merely be wrong. Nah it's straight to the conspiracy
theories for you. Besides, we did cap and trade with acid rain
producing/enhancing compounds and that went quite well so it's not like
there isn't evidence this kind of thing can work.

If you want
to solve the problem you need to convince the PEOPLE that what you want is
needed (Not Congress). The people need to support you. Bottom_up works.
Top_down doesn't. When you go straight to Congress and insiste they give
you a law that will FORCE people to live your way... and skip convincing the
people first... it fails.

Congress can't force people to
change lifestyle. Congress reports to the people and does what they want (most
of the time). Because if they don't... we'll vote them out.

I think you should convince the public first and let THEM pressure Congress.

Facts:1- Carbon dioxide emissions cause the atmosphere to warm up.2-
Humans are emitting huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.3-
Global warming is a myth because hate radio tells me it is.

New York
Times reports, "The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been
markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And
that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in
the atmosphere at a record pace."

1- Carbon dioxide emissions
(should) cause the atmosphere to warm up.2- Humans are emitting huge
amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (at a record pace)

But
apparently CO2 is not the driving force and is not bad in and of itself. The
AGU reports include the south western US, like Utah and Arizona, we are on
average 11% greener than 15 years ago. How bad is that. And again why is a
warmer temperature bad?

"As you might
imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this
warming plateau. They typically argue that “global warming stopped 15
years ago” or some similar statement, and then assert that this disproves
the whole notion that greenhouse gases are causing warming.

Rarely do
they mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have
occurred recently. Moreover, their claim depends on careful selection of the
starting and ending points. The starting point is almost always 1998, a
particularly warm year because of a strong El Niño weather pattern.

Somebody who wanted to sell you gold coins as an investment could make
the same kind of argument about the futility of putting your retirement funds
into the stock market. If he picked the start date and the end date carefully
enough, the gold salesman could make it look like the stock market did not go up
for a decade or longer."

Human responsibility
for most of the well-documented increase in global average temperatures over the
last half century is well established.

AND

The
Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many
components of the climate system . . . are now changing at rates and in patterns
that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric
abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during
the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by
about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the
previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850.

AND

The geological record indicates that the current rates of sea-level rise
in many regions are unprecedented relative to rates of the last several thousand
years.

Sea-level rise will exacerbate the impacts of extreme events,
such as hurricanes and storms, over the long-term.

Isn't it interesting that he points to heat waves like we have now. The
temperature yesterday tied a record high for June 10 at 100 degrees. The date
that it tied with as in 1918, nearly a century ago. These "heat waves"
aren't new, the claim that the sky is falling and the earth will no longer
sustain us, is also not new. But, like all the previous claims, the changes in
the climate will not be the end of civilization as we know it.

I mean comments to be revealing. Unlike liberals, who love to hide their
real ideas behind misleading sloganeering -- like calling it
"pro-choice" to remove all choice, forever, from an unborn baby. Or
"safe sex" to engage in dangerous, soul-destroying behaviors.

Or to do a quick switcheroo to "climate change," when foundational AGW
models and predictions prove to be monumentally, laughably wrong.

Any
scientist, of any stripe, who maintains that a deranged new America-only tax
scam, one that'll increase the cost to Americans of EVERY product and
commodity, will somehow "solve" the AGW "problem" is not just
mistaken, he's selling something.

It simply cannot be
demonstrated, to any meaningful confidence level, that ANY American action would
produce ANY retreat in atmospheric carbon levels, or that ANY such retreat would
produce ANY effect on global climate.

That won't stop
doctrinaire political hacks and "greenies" posing as scientists from
bleating about hope and change.

Hansen's prognostications have proven to be alarmist and dangerously
obstructive to the poor in developing countries and their access to affordable
energy. Hansen and his friends at U. of East Anglia have led the global warming
argument for more than two decades (with Al Gore). The email scandal a couple
of years ago should serve as a reminder that they will not only bend science to
make a profit, but will also make stuff up and conspire with one another to hide
it. And in case you missed it, Hansen's hockey stick graphic in the movie
was also proven false. So excuse me for not worshiping at the altar of Mr.
Hansen.

Studies show that fluctuations of earth's temperature
coincide directly with sun activity--not CO2 levels. Rises and falls in
temperature have occurred throughout our planets history long before the fossil
fuels industry. So, using logic, what affected temperatures. Is it a miniscule
rise in CO2 levels (which is less than 2 percent of all greenhouse gasses), or
could it be the big ball of fire in the sky that generates heat for our entire
solar system? You be the judge.